| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Next encounter, I'd be sure to tell him you automatically win because trolls, orcs, and goblins don't actually exist.
"Slashing doesn't do full damage to the foe in full plate!"
"Well, greatswords actually do more bludgeoning damage anyways as they were meant to be heavy enough to do blunt force trauma through the armor of their time!"
That's the kind of argument you can expect in "realism" debates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimatly, what I'm saying is that "realism" shouldn't be used as an argument, in either direction.
Realism has inherent value. Can I jump over a five foot river? How long does it take to knock down a wall with a pickaxe? If I try to murder someone in their sleep with a dagger, will that work?
If the rules don't behave realistically, then real life knowledge will mislead you. Novice players will describe the actions they want to take, expecting them to work, only to be confused when the game rules tell them it won't. "No, you can't walk five feet and pick up an item and then walk another five feet in one round. But you can walk thirty feet and then pick up an item."
Obviously, any rules for the sake of realism should be run past other filters. Is the rule clear and simple to understand? Does it harm game balance? Does it slow down gameplay?
In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.
If the garrote is made of wire, it doesn't so much strangle as it does... cut.
Drowning in your own blood/having carotid artery and jugular vein opened up will for sure result in death pretty fast.
One round? Maybe.
Will you be swinging a sword around while shooting blood twelve feet in the air? Unlikely.
If this GM want's to enforce 'realism' then play a crossbow-using martial, and remind him that magic isn't real.
Win.
To Kirth's point, and why I chose the garotte as my example rather than the very obvious sword or dagger, is that the game mechanics do not, in any way, reflect how a garotte works in RL. For very good gaming reasons: you don't want to allow insta-kill weapons or make it too easy to c-d-g someone. It's a game.
"Slashing doesn't do full damage to the foe in full plate!"
"Well, greatswords actually do more bludgeoning damage anyways as they were meant to be heavy enough to do blunt force trauma through the armor of their time!"That's the kind of argument you can expect in "realism" debates.
God, I hate when people imply that swords like greatswords were kept dull and used like big clubs. D:<
God, I hate when people imply that swords like greatswords were kept dull and used like big clubs. D:<"Slashing doesn't do full damage to the foe in full plate!"
"Well, greatswords actually do more bludgeoning damage anyways as they were meant to be heavy enough to do blunt force trauma through the armor of their time!"That's the kind of argument you can expect in "realism" debates.
A greatsword is only dull if someone is expecting it to be kept a keen razor edge, which would just be impractical if the sword seeing any kind of regular use. It's still sharp enough to ruin someone's day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(like when shooting guns in games makes the sight move up, while realistically it would pull in all directions and a trained soldier would adjust their aim and not shot the roof after a few seconds of holding down the trigger, etc.).
So. Fun fact: I've fired a lot of fully automatic weapons in my life. And yes, the barrel does move up. And I've never seen it move down.
As proof that it isn't just the human body, I also had to account for muzzle rise when my weapons were mounted to a tripod or a vehicle. Even my slow firing machine guns were like that, such as when I fired subsequent shots with my fully automatic grenade launcher (the MK-19 was my favorite gun).
I once saw someone handle a tommy gun as the first weapon they ever fired (I was not leading this show, just witnessing it); we were in an underground firing range and on her 6th or 7th shot, she hit the ceiling. You could see the path of bullets from the target leading up the wall to the ceiling before she ran out of bullets (they only gave her 10).
Muzzle rise is such a common thing that there's a plethora of videos on the net showing first time users smacking themselves in the face after firing a handgun. I can't speak from experience here, I've only ever fired a handgun once in my life, but looking up the definition of muzzle rise on the net shows the mechanism for how handguns do this, too.
So "realism" in a game only goes as far as the author's assumption about realism. Practically guaranteed that the person arguing for realism in a game gets it wrong - especially the further back in history we go.
Heck, I once had a player argue with me that a bullet should ricochet off the ground just like a billards ball on a pool table; but I've actually worked with the man who wrote the research paper on the ricochet tregectory of bullets, and no, they don't. At best you get maybe a 15% roochet and it has to be the right angle and shot.
Realism in game should be an assistance to players to help understand and immerse in the game, but it shouldn't hold us back from the simple enjoyment of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Katanas shatter.
I thought katanas could cut through tank armor? Lol
To Kirth's point, and why I chose the garotte as my example rather than the very obvious sword or dagger, is that the game mechanics do not, in any way, reflect how a garotte works in RL. For very good gaming reasons: you don't want to allow insta-kill weapons or make it too easy to c-d-g someone. It's a game.
And, like I said, the game mechanics don't reflect how swords or daggers work, either. For the exact same reason: you don't want to have insta-kill weapons. Even though that's exactly what weapons are for, for game purposes we pretend that putting a dagger into someone's brain won't kill them; you have to do it 15 or 20 times instead. Otherwise all combat boils down to an initiative check which, while maybe more "realistic," is generally considered a lot less fun -- so you and I are definitely on the same page as far as that goes.
So. Fun fact: I've fired a lot of fully automatic weapons in my life. And yes, the barrel does move up. And I've never seen it move down.
** spoiler omitted **
Since almost all weapons are mounted from the underneath, they'll experience muzzle rise. I'd bet that chin-mounted weapons on helicopters (for example) have the opposite effect.
Sorry for the continued derail, it's just an interesting subject.
A greatsword is only dull if someone is expecting it to be kept a keen razor edge, which would just be impractical if the sword seeing any kind of regular use. It's still sharp enough to ruin someone's day.God, I hate when people imply that swords like greatswords were kept dull and used like big clubs. D:<"Slashing doesn't do full damage to the foe in full plate!"
"Well, greatswords actually do more bludgeoning damage anyways as they were meant to be heavy enough to do blunt force trauma through the armor of their time!"That's the kind of argument you can expect in "realism" debates.
Naturally. It would take a lot of work to keep a greatsword at shaving sharp level. But there are people who seriously believe that swords of all types in the Middle Ages were kept either dull or just barely sharpened because "blunt force trauma works just as well".
The only reason to keep a sword shaving sharp is if you are cutting through commoners with no armor. Even then you will likely notch the blade on a rib, femur, or vertebrae. A sword that sharp would not stay that sharp for long unless you spent hours honing it after each battle which could have been done seeing as it was the time of servants and squires and the nobles/knights were not doing it themselves. They weren't dull but I highly doubt they would even pass the simple "paper test". I'm not sure many wasted their time sharpening their swords that much unless they were designed for slashing in fights with mostly unarmored foes. If you look at most occurrences of cutting/slashing weapons they existed in periods of low/no metal armor ie katana or were designed for piecing ie rapier.Naturally. It would take a lot of work to keep a greatsword at shaving sharp level. But there are people who seriously believe that swords of all types in the Middle Ages were kept either dull or just barely sharpened because "blunt force trauma works just as well".A greatsword is only dull if someone is expecting it to be kept a keen razor edge, which would just be impractical if the sword seeing any kind of regular use. It's still sharp enough to ruin someone's day.God, I hate when people imply that swords like greatswords were kept dull and used like big clubs. D:<"Slashing doesn't do full damage to the foe in full plate!"
"Well, greatswords actually do more bludgeoning damage anyways as they were meant to be heavy enough to do blunt force trauma through the armor of their time!"That's the kind of argument you can expect in "realism" debates.
I'm pretty sure a knight has to do that at some point in his life. Especially if the commoner is coming at him with a spear and was told by the knight's enemy to attack. Still, there was probably a point where you'd say 'OK, this thing's sharp enough for government work'. And I think some long/greatswords were sharpened more at the tip than elsewhere, weren't they?
Do you need to sharpen magical swords? I've never seen anything regarding this...
Do you need to sharpen magical swords? I've never seen anything regarding this...
Considering there's an actual whetstone item in the game and the benefit of it specifically doesn't apply to magical weapons, I'd say no.
I'd think it'd be reasonable that if you can knock the rust off of a 10,000-year-old Azlanti sword (*coughserpentsskullcough*) and use it just fine, an infinitely-sharpened sword isn't out of the question.
There is a whetstone and it takes 15 minutes to give +1 damage on next attack.
+1 enhancement bonus to damage, which doesn't stack with magical weapons. :P
The only reason to keep a sword shaving sharp is if you are cutting through commoners with no armor. Even then you will likely notch the blade on a rib, femur, or vertebrae. A sword that sharp would not stay that sharp for long unless you spent hours honing it after each battle which could have been done seeing as it was the time of servants and squires and the nobles/knights were not doing it themselves. They weren't dull but I highly doubt they would even pass the simple "paper test". I'm not sure many wasted their time sharpening their swords that much unless they were designed for slashing in fights with mostly unarmored foes. If you look at most occurrences of cutting/slashing weapons they existed in periods of low/no metal armor ie katana or were designed for piecing ie rapier.Naturally. It would take a lot of work to keep a greatsword at shaving sharp level. But there are people who seriously believe that swords of all types in the Middle Ages were kept either dull or just barely sharpened because "blunt force trauma works just as well".A greatsword is only dull if someone is expecting it to be kept a keen razor edge, which would just be impractical if the sword seeing any kind of regular use. It's still sharp enough to ruin someone's day.God, I hate when people imply that swords like greatswords were kept dull and used like big clubs. D:<"Slashing doesn't do full damage to the foe in full plate!"
"Well, greatswords actually do more bludgeoning damage anyways as they were meant to be heavy enough to do blunt force trauma through the armor of their time!"That's the kind of argument you can expect in "realism" debates.
At least 90% of foes were unarmored. Just putting that out there. Either that, or wearing what amounted to leather jackets, which can be slashed open pretty good with a sword, if kept sharp. Swords indeed didn't keep sharp for long, and archeological finds often show signs of being ground down due to notches and crap from hitting bones, getting dull and needing to be sharpened.
Also, sharp points were rather important - you rely on the tip to go through ringmail, if you need to. Working long and hard at putting the tip through someone's vizor only to have it fail to penetrate his skull would put you in a fairly awkward position, so you'd better sharpen that crap, at least. Actually, there are several swords which went without edges in favor of poking things - these are called rapiers, or estocs, mostly. Dagger version would be the roundel, and the longer version would be the spear. Swords had edges, mostly because people wanted to use those edges to cut open other people.
You better believe they were sharp. 'The hell would you even make a sword if you didn't intend it to be sharp? Even the maces and stuff were equipped with edges, because while blunt trauma is nice, there's no reason not to go for blunt trauma + spiky metal to the brain.
So yeah, you couldn't slash at someone wearing full plate armor, 'tis true. But that's an extremely niche scenario, and for that, you just hit him on the helmet with your crossguard or pommel, and then stick your sword in his eyes while he's disoriented. Problem solved, and without f#%!ing up your sword's edge by trying to impart blunt trauma on metal with it to boot.
[/endrant]
|
Actually, there are several swords which went without edges in favor of poking things - these are called rapiers, or estocs, mostly.
Rapiers absolutely had edges. Some of the were only sharpened for part of their length, but most were full length, double edged weapons, and all had an edge of some sort. Their primary purpose was thrusting, but they were totally capable of flaying open flesh. You didn't hack with them, they would use drawing or thrusting cuts.
